Slashdot Mirror

in Florida if you want to be a police officer you have to get a polygraphed interview

Yeah, how's that working out for them?

An article dated Sep 2005, based on UN report show that poverty is in rise even in US.
UN Hits Back at US in Report Saying Parts of America are as Poor as Third World. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0908-06.ht m

Some highlights...
Child mortality is on the rise in the United States
The infant mortality rate in the US is now the same as in Malaysia
Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala
Child poverty rates in the United States are now more than 20 per cent

U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality (Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation March, 2002) http://www.banminesusa.org/qa/vvaf.html

NGOs Urge US to Halt use of Landmines in Afghanistan http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1027-05.ht m

From "Landmines in Iraq": http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/iraqmines1212.htm
The last time the U.S. used antipersonnel mines was in the Gulf War in 1991 and according to a study recently released by the General Accounting Office, the Bush Administration is reported to be reviewing war plans that include plans for the use of mines. The Pentagon has said it "retains the right to use landmines."

From the same source: What will the impact be on the mine ban movement if the U.S. uses mines in Iraq? The use of antipersonnel mines by the U.S. in Iraq would certainly be a setback to the overall movement to eradicate the weapon. It would reverse the positive steps the U.S. has taken in the past decade to ban antipersonnel mines, which has been an objective of the U.S. since 1994; it would likely be the death knell of the existing U.S. policy goal of joining the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006. New U.S. mine use would also undermine efforts to fully implement and universalize the Mine Ban Treaty by providing justification for other holdout states to use, produce, or export these indiscriminate weapons. The U.S. supplied antipersonnel mines to more than three-dozen countries in the past. U.S.-manufactured mines have been planted in the ground and caused civilian casualties in more than two-dozen countries.

So much for the US being whiter than white when it comes to landmines.

There is no evidence of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

we may have helped him BEFORE he commited atrocities

The US and Britain continued to sell Iraq materials for making biological and chemical weapons after Halabja the gas attack.

I hope when the s*&t hits the fan in Iran or N. Korea that people remember the threats they have been giving us and our allies all along.

The US has also made threats - does that justify a pre-emptive strike against the US? I don't think so.

True capitalists are all for the right to give things away. That's among the biggest of reasons they oppose the death tax.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are not true capitalists? They don't oppose the estate tax. It is not difficult to find capitalists who support the idea of an estate tax.

The main reason it is an issue seems to be 18 very rich families have purchased enough influence to make it an issue.

Libertarians oppose the estate tax because they oppose taxation in general. Taxation and government are not necessarily anti-capitalist, though Libertarians may disagree.

You can't give things away that the government takes away first.

That is not always true. Generally, the government cannot take what you give away first. Mr. Buffett just greatly reduced the potential tax liability on his estate by giving away 85% of it. Every year, you can decrease your tax liability by giving away some money. In fact, you can give away so much money, that the government will give you back money that they have already taken from you. If the government takes your assets based on some criminal or civil action, your statement holds true; but I don't believe it is true in most cases in the context of federal taxation.

The incentive to give things away created by the estate tax is one of the arguments for keeping it. Sales taxes and usage fees generally create no such incentive.

As a matter of fact, because a communist society doesn't recognize the concept of private property, how can you give something away if you don't have the right to own it in the first place?

I'm certainly not an expert, but I believe the theory goes something like this. You give away the value of your labor in return for what you need. There is no need for charity, because you will not be denied something you need because someone else is claiming it as property. Of course, things work differently in practice; but, that is true of most political and economic theories.

After a lifetime of not paying taxes on the billions, now he's still going to stiff the taxman even after arguing before Congress on what a "critical role" estate taxes have.

Nice.

The most recent:

"It is an effect that has been predicted as a likely result of climate change," said David Vaughan, an independent expert on the ice sheets at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England.

In a region known for the lowest temperatures recorded on Earth, it normally is too cold for snow to form across the 2.7 million square miles of the ice sheet. Any additional annual snowfall in East Antarctica, therefore, is almost certainly attributable to warmer temperatures, four experts on Antarctica said.

"As the atmosphere warms, it should hold more moisture," said climatologist Joseph R. McConnell at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, who helped conduct the study. "In East Antarctica, that means there should be more snowfall."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0520-08.ht m

2004:

"Our studies of cores in New Jersey provide one of the best- dated estimates of how fast and how much sea level changed during the greenhouse world of the Late Cretaceous," said Miller. "The Earth was certainly much warmer at that time, probably due to high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. At the same time, our estimates require that ice sheets grew and decayed on Antarctica during this period of peak warmth, which has been a previously heretical view."

The scientists propose that the ice sheets were restricted in area to Antarctica and were ephemeral. The ice sheets would not have reached the Antarctic coast, explaining the relative warmth in Antarctica, but still could significantly alter global sea level.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/04022 9231619.htm

1997 and earlier:

    Having little means to lose mass, East Antarctica would seem to be a
good place to increase accumulation and lower sea level. A nice idea,
but it runs into the problem that precipitation is also highly
inefficient over the East Antarctic plateau (arguably the driest desert
in the world). The best estimates place the rate of increased
accumulation over East Antarctica at right about the same as the
increased ablation on Greenland. That would be a wash for sea level.
Some redistribution of water from north to south, but no net effect.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sea-level-faq/

This has been expected for a long time. West Antartica is just going to melt. East Antartica is going to grow for a while, then melt. Suddenly.

There's nothing you can sing that ain't been sung.

Sure the antarctic ice cap may be growing now, but it won't be for long. THis is a quote from the same article the parent "quoted"

"All told, the fresh water locked up in the ice of East Antarctica is enough to raise the level of the oceans by about 196 feet, experts said. If it continues to grow as expected, the ice sheet could buffer some, but not all, of the effects of anticipated sea-level rise for much of the coming century, the researchers said."

It will buffer some, but not all of the anticipated sea-level rise.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0520-08.ht m

Ding, ding, mod parent up. The people of Nazi Germany thought they were free too:

http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.h tml

the dirty secret of successful totalitarian control is rooting out the dissidents quietly while making sure the people who go along with it think "if I'm not doing anything "wrong" what do I have to worry about...?" Keep a constant watch on the watchers, some good resources to start:

Libertarian/Paleo right

http://antiwar.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.amconmag.com/

Moderate:

http://buzzflash.com/
http://moveon.org/

Left:

http://counterpunch.org/
http://commondreams.org/
http://indymedia.org/

That should keep you busy for a while...

"What that law does state is that Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens would not be automatically granted Israeli citizenship."

And it also means the Palestinian spouse can't move to Israel to live together as man and wife. I don't think an Israeli citizen can easily move to the West Bank to live with their spouse either. The Israeli military restricts who can move to the West bank, apparently favoring to only allow Jews to move their to create "illegal" settlements secretly blessed by the Israeli government. Yes I think you can get married but you probably wont be able to live together and any children you have will be in legal limbo.

Contrast this with any non Palestinian who can marry an Israeli and get citizenship with no problem. Any Jew from anywhere in the world can easily move to Israel and get citizenship and in fact many American Jews have duel citizenship where they are given an Israeli passport merely because they are Jewish. I think Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the disaster in Iraq, carries
dual citizenship and duel alegience which is bad for a key decision maker in the Pentagon.

You can try to rationalize it anyway you like but in its current form it is a racist, apartheid policy designed to cement Israel as a Jewish state. It is a hard and fast rule a Jew from anywhere can get citizenship in a heart beat and its nearly impossible for Palestinians to even return to what was their home for centuries until they were driven out, often by threat of violence like the massacre at Deir Yassin.

"The Palestinians are currently at war with Israel."

Yes and likewise the Israelis have been at war with the Palestinians since they pushed them out of the homes 60 years ago. You act like its only the Palestinians who are at war. Far more of them die at the hands of the Israelis than the other way around. Its also unlikely there will ever be any real peace short of the Palestinians completely capitulating and accepting life in walled ghettos in Gaza and the West Bank for the rest of time, most probably in eternal povery since the occupied territories are economically unviable inside an Israeli noose.

If you had been driven out of your home and in to refugee camps for 60 years I'm pretty sure you would be doing the same things the Palestinians are doing.

Onealternative viewpoint to consider and .

And a criminal record that will follow him for the rest of his life, procluding him from many jobs, a common legal excuse for denying rental housing, etc. Plus (since he's in a scary place like Texas) if he screws up in the least little way he could get tossed in a cell for a long while (like 16 years for stealing a candy bar).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/704922.s tm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/040700-01.ht m

So when the only job your friend can get is pushing shopping carts around and living in a leaky trailer away from anything normal remember how "light" his sentance was. It's Texas, unless you're white and connected no one get's off "light". BTW, during the next huricane evacuation don't bother looking for your friend since Texas plans to "segregate" convicted criminals away from the "good" people.

Simply put: unless your friend gets his conviction sealed he'll wear a scarlet "C" on him forever. Meanwhile Sony execs still enjoy their multimillion dollar paycheck and no conviction.

Welcome to amerika.

your analogy is faulted. If someone breaks into my home, steaks my secrets and gives them to someone else to be be pulished, they are guilty of breaking and entering. I may be arrested if those secrets indicade illegal activity, despite the method of abtaining them. I and the perp may be arrested. If the secrets were obtained by a third party from someone that lived in my house, say, my wife, then it is not theft, simply me being turned in for illegal activity.
Defense secrets should be kept secret, but what if the secrets are hiding illegal activity that needs to, no must, be exposed.

If the gvt. spying on legal protesters because of "national secrets" issues but is realy cracking down on its critics, would you want to know? http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/1 5/155219/

If the gvt. (read NSA) is spying on American citizens who are living in America, wouldn't you want to know? (NSA is't chartered to do domestic spying)http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/121 6-01.htm/

If the gvt. is spying on/jailing reporters due to "some laws" in an effort to curtail their investigations into administration acrivities that may be illegal, wouldn't you wnat to know? http://judithmiller.org/news/p20050801.php/

If the gvt. gave specific reasons for going to war, and some of them may have been fabricated to convince the public, wouldn't you want to know?http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article= 35415/

If the gvt. were opening your mail because it came from overseas, wouldn't you want to know?Ifthegvt.wasreadingyouremailbecauseyouattende dananti-warprotestincollege,wouldn'tyouwanttoknow? Ifthegvt.wasreclassifyinghundredsofthousandsofdocu mentsthathadbeenpublishedforyearsordecades,wouldn' tyouwanttoknowwhy?Ifyouweresomehowonanoflylistandw ereinnowayaffailatedwithterroristsbutwereawellknow nwarprotester,wouldn'twanttoknowwhy?Ifthegvt.isspy ingoncitizenswithoutacourtorder(don'tgivethatbulls hitaboutorderstakingtoolong,theycangetaFISAorderth reedaysAFTERthespyinghasbeendone),wouldn'twouwantt oknow?Icouldgoon(andon),butyoushouldgettheideabyno w.Thegvt.shouldhavesecrets,butifthosesecretsarecov eringupillegalactivity,thepeoplehavearighttoknowan dthepresshasaobligationtotellthem.Thepresidenthasg reatpowerwhilewearewar,butisn'titinterestingthatwe areinaneverendingwaronterror.Nopoliticianwouldever endthewaronterroraslongasterrorsomewhereexists

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... So, if we fix the network, we can kill just as many iraqi's http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0518-03.ht m but remotely!

WOW such an improvement!

P.S. Before the die hard idiots comment on this with "well, thats just an isolated case" or "there is no proof of that", I'd just like to say that yeah ur right.. ur all right... i mean whatever makes you sleep better!

The NSA doesn't give a shit that you ordered a che guearra T-shirt and hang out at ANSWER rallies 'speaking truth to power.' They don't care that whenever some new leak comes out of the CIA you're furiously typing away on your blog about how much this adminstration sucks and is the most evil thing since hitler killed a puppy for fun. They have more important things to do.

The US has been a scary place since 9/11, and not because of potential Islamic terrorism or whatever they're selling it as now. The big controversy up here in Canada right now is that everybody is going to need a passport to go across the border by next year. For me, this is a non-issue. You'd have to drag me kicking and screaming to get me into the US in the first place.

That's not to say that we're a free society in Canada either, but at least we're not building concentration camps yet.

Considering that Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc., was quoted in August of 2003 as saying that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year", this shouldn't be too surprising.

When they actually start to censor something come back and let me know.

To make it easier on you, google keyword was "American Censorship". Enjoy :)

AGW appears to be drying out Tibet. The number of people in those watersheds is frightening.

(Sorry to post as a reply, but I can't find the frigging "top level reply" link on the article page for some reason...)

However, because their representatives are elected and the government employees consider themselves servants instead of power brokers, the "big governments" in those countries aren't locking up political prisoners.

Sounds like someone needs to educate themselves.

It's later than you think.

1) The US is a member of NATO.

2) Although the commander of the NATO operation was British, the plane that made the attack was a US Air Force F15E manned by an American Air Force pilot and weapons officer.

3) Amnesty International's investigation determined that NATO had not taken sufficient precautionary measures to ensure there was no civilian traffic in the vicinity of the bridge before launching the attack and even worse, sped up the video of the attack released to the press to make it appear more unavoidable than it was. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/060700-02.ht m

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

I agree with you on the fact that it was mediocre comedy, but how many times can anyone point to an that the president was at and say that he just got his ass handed to him. There were a few points that I really enjoyed it, otherwise he was just someone showing the president what many people have been saying, and not just the president, the news. But, like many other Slashdotters have mentioned, this has not and will not be covered in any form of news other than things like Slashdot and Comedy Central.

I wish he had said more, because there is a lot more that could be said. There are plenty of ideas that have been pointed out long ago that would have made me respect Colbert much more. I'm certain that this is really pointless, and that nothing will come of it, because, like Good Night and Good Luck reminds us, "[media] in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us."

Just my $0.02

As a stock holder in a dozen or so corporations, I can definitively say that all of the CEO's of said companies have been paid ludicrous amounts that are in no way based on the actual performance of my stock and investment in said companies. I also know that my 0.00000003% share of the company makes my voice non-exitent in the debate. The fact that 90+% of most companies shares are purchased by 1) Board of Director members, or 2) Invesment Fund Managers (who may also be members of BoD, or related to members or CEOs) means that many, many, many of the upper management compensation decisions are entirely based on elements that have no correlation to the quality of the job the people have done, but much more on the amount of corruption, inside information, and payola being passed around. I actually attended a couple annual shareholders meetings, thinking that I would then get some of the information that I heard financial analysts talking about, or that obviously some of the big investors had access to. Also thinking that I might have some influence on what I thought my company should be doing. HA!

Sports, Hollywood, or other stars are selling their popularity, and presumably the advertisers and producers are getting a good return for their investment. I personnally do not think that my shares in Coca Cola are that enhanced by massive spending on sports endorsements. But at least the company appears to be trying to show some sort of fiscal responsibility towards the average shareholder.

And you are right, if you own no stock, have no investment protfolio, no retirement fund, don't work for a public company, and have no pension to worry about, it is none of your business. First, I would weep for your future, except that my taxes will pay for your welfare. Second, as someone who participates in all of the above I have a great interest in how my assests are being used, as well as interest in what other companies are presenting as "standard" business practices.

As far as relative value, when the CEO salary vs average worker ratio was 85 to 1 in 1990, I thought that was excessive. Now with the average at 431 to 1, it is so far beyond relative worth that the corruption is glaring.

Well, I'm immediately sceptical of any Bush appointees motives.

You have...
The mining lobbyist as a number 2 in the Department of the Interior and a cattle rancher laywer as the chief counsel.
The pharmaceutical lawyer acting as lead counsel for the FDA.
The meat industry lobbyist running our meat labelling program.
The number 2 in the EPA was a Monsanto executive, and his pick for chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality represented GE in its fight against cleaning up its own toxic waste. The chief of staff left to go work for Southern Company (a major owner of coal plants) a week after clean air standard were relaxed.

Read more.

Essentially, Bush has packed every government enforcement agency with people who have spent their careers trying to help companies get out of complying with regulations meant to protect the people. Even his own Supreme Court nominees are strong advocates of executive power. His legacy has been to undermine every control meant to keep him and his supports from running out of control.

Because the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers. These guys were neither uniformed not soldiers of any government.

While this is definitely the correct answer to my provocation, it still doesn't feel right. As I said, the rules are made such that, when everybody follows them, the ones who made them will win.

Not that I'm sympathizing with terrorists, but I guess there's more than one innocent prisoner at Guantanamo Bay... isn't that kafkaesque? "why don't I get a fair trial?" "well, weren't wearing a uniform, were you?"

and the US apologizes repeatedly for it. I have yet to hear Bin Laden apologize for the accidental civilian deaths on 9-11.

Ok, if he apologized, but did it again right after that, would you feel better? And some of the apologies of the US really aren't very plausible. They sacrifice a few dispensable soldiers and pretend that the leaders hadn't known what was going on.

I'm curious - what do you consider a realistic timeline for conversion from the current Earth to an ice age Earth?

Looking at the ice cores, however, scientists were shocked to discover that the transitions from ice age-like weather to contemporary-type weather usually took only two or three years. Something was flipping the weather of the planet back and forth with a rapidity that was startling.
(Ok, this is the reverse direction : Ice Age -> Normal)

What brought on this sudden "disappearance of summer" period was that the warm-water currents of the Great Conveyor Belt had shut down. Once the Gulf Stream was no longer flowing, it only took a year or three for the last of the residual heat held in the North Atlantic Ocean to dissipate into the air over Europe, and then there was no more warmth to moderate the northern latitudes. When the summer stopped in the north, the rains stopped around the equator: At the same time Europe was plunged into an Ice Age, the Middle East and Africa were ravaged by drought and wind-driven firestorms.
(This is about Normal -> Ice Age)

Source

The liberal media myth is tired, old, and ridiculous. There are 5 corporations that own the media, and those corporations and their CEOs contribute waaay more money to republicans than they do to democrats. Combine this with Republicans=Neocons and Democrats=Moderates, with no real left, and NO ONE in the media is actually liberal. If you want to read or watch something that is actually liberal, you need to look at common dreams or alter news. Those are liberal news sources...which in no way means they aren't accurate. So do a bit or research, and please, stop repeating talking points that are patently false and easily debunked.

Good thing we have those giant ice cubes eh? They should cool us down real fast

Does anyone know if Ira Hatch of Utah is related to Orrin Hatch of Utah? I tried finding out via google or wikipedia but came up blank. If so I can certainly understand why he would feel that Diebold is the best outfit for the job, given the company's notorious Republican-friendly past statements.

This is old news. A memo from July 2002 discovered by the Times (of London) last year shows that the desicion to go to war was already taken back then.

we own all of our employees ideas and we have a large legal team of patent experts....

To sum up our business, its to play teh lawsuit game, to sue any and everybody who uses any of the same ideas that the brains we employ come up with first. Or licenses those ideas to any who want to do them.

Since the USPTO is leaning towards the patenting of not just ideas but the thought of an idea......

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0321-05.ht m

Many others have pointed out issues with your statements. I shall ask you one question: What about those who made money, despite there being an unstable society, economy, or infrastructure? There are rich people in 3rd world countries, for instance, that didn't get their money by dishonest means. They did so despite the poor conditions.

I'd just like to reiterate that all throughout your life, you're paying taxes on what you earn. When you earn wages, you're taxed. When you buy a house with those wages, you're taxed. Every year you own that house, you're taxed. If you sell the house, you're taxed if you made a profit from the sale.

I'm sorry, but it's just ridiculous how many taxes we pay. If we haven't contributed to the stable society, infrastructure, and economy after all of that, I question the people in charge of making the decisions. I'm certainly paying too much, and I submit it's because they're spending too much.

Do us all a favor. If you don't cite articles from a liberal propaganda machine like CommonDreams.org, I won't cite articles from everyone's neocon "news" machine, Fox News. Did you check today's headlines? OMFG! AN OIL PIPE BUSTED AMINALS R GONNA DIE!!! -- OMFG! BUSH'S POST WAR POLICY SI TEH GHEY!!! As much as I take issue with some of President Bush's actions, I think it's a bit much to draw parallels between him and Slobodan Milosevic just so you can push the idea of OMFG BUSH SI TEH GHEY!!!

I don't live in the US but I live very close and almost all of my IP traffic travels through the US at some point and my worry is that any business information collected by the US/CIA/FBI or other US agency would be made available to US companies. There have been court cases in the past of US sponsored spying benefiting US companies. They say they are after terrorist but who knows? With the knowledge of past activities of US spies and the current computing power of the US agencies all foreign businesses would be well advised to encrypt all sensitive information.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1994/05/dr eyfuss.html

http://web.nps.navy.mil/~relooney/4141_Spring2002. pdf

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070200-02.ht m

Not using encryption is to believe GWB when he says "Trust me"

• Continued concentrate of power in the elite. In any democracy, wealth can be translated into political power. It is a fact of life. Rememeber Bush's address to a group of wealth business men, "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." Continued power concentrated in the hands of few will diminish the protection and representation of the unelite. Growing numbers of the very rich can give money to political candidates who support their personal agendas. "Those contributions clearly have an influence on public policy," Gates says, such as more tax breaks for the rich or weakening of regulations that protect consumers.
  
  
• Limit Innovation. A society full of undeserving rich kids travelling around collecting art work for their private collections does not induce innovation.
  
  
• Govt research and investments. Reducing taxes could crimp government research and investments in education -- the source of innovations that create jobs. With less education, growing numbers of workers can't get ahead.

The incidents in Ohio?

too bad i blanked my political forums :/

hold on lemme see what i can dig up - i remember the incidents on memory

Inappropriate tampering with the machines: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml
Inproper voting machine allocation - i used to have a source for this but i cannot find it now and i don't haev time to [i'm at work]

here is one i confirmed with my own eyes from the PDF
"2. Stryguy on the DemocraticUnderground.com found a huge anomaly in Franklin County Ohio. One polling location registered a Bush victory 4258-260. Wow- impressive Bush support eh? Funny how the vote (in this precinct) on all the other races was like 350-250. It seems like 4,000 Bush lovers came to the polls to vote for Bush and nothing else."
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=41 75 (VERY information heavy link - go here!)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1114-02.ht m

some simple googling will get you a wealth of information. There were more clear instances of irregularities in the US election than in the Ukranian election that Bush called fraudulent. Also the "descrepency with the exist polls" Bush, and everyone, cited as evidence of fraud in the Ukranian election also took place happened more severely in the US election (see bellacio org link for charts). One statistican from an ivy league school (yale i believe) said the likelyhood that the exits polls, that showed kerry winning, were wrong was 250 million:1 AGAINST them being incorrect or some smiliar number

grr where i should have made backups

What about TIDE???

This is already done to some extent; tidal power has the advantage (over wind and solar) of being reliable and predictable, although it is not constant in any given location.

naturally occuring currents example: gulf stream...

Some research is being done here; one potential issue is that the Gulf Stream is theoretically in danger of shutting down altogether due to global warming. Tapping its current may only hasten this, even if it reduces environmentally-unfriendly power generation elsewhere... It is food for thought, definitely.

Wow. This is the most twisted thing I've ever heard.

You don't get out much.

You are insinuating that there is a concerted effort to discredit critics here in the US. I would submit that nowhere else in the world are people allowed to say whatever they want without being "ostracized".

No, that's a straw man you just made up. I never said any such thing. PRC's main error perhaps is in being direct instead of fomenting an environment that would accomodate their censorious and etcetera methods of populace control.

Anyway, no, this is not a country where you can say whatever you want without being ostracized. Maybe you can do it, usually, without being arrested, probably without being jailed, and perhaps certainly without being deported or executed.

Of course, the odds of this upon you are dependent on which whatevers you personally want to say. I could argue that you can say "whatever you want" in China, too; provided that the only things you want to say are OK things to say. I guess it comes down to how you decide your wants. Perhaps I don't want to say something that will get me arrested -- and then everything's OK, right?

OK, so Bush decides that he will dock the pay of reporters whose stories he doesn't agree with. You actually think anyone would be okay with that?

Would they hear about it after the reporters were fired and blackballed? Anyway, see straw man comment above.

This is where you are exactly wrong. The Chinese people don't care enough. They need to be more selfish. They need to tell their leaders that they won't work in a coal mine for a dollar a day without safety equipment. They need to care more about themselves.

Everyone knows how well labor organization works nowadays. I.e. not at all, unless regulated into puppetry for illusory purposes.

It seems that people cared more about security than these issues.

Yeah, but *why* that is is a relevant question.

People aren't dumb, they made a "lesser of two evils" type choice.

I fail to see why concerns about physical security has prevented them from also having concerns about economic or social security. Is there room for only one concern in the American populace? Or is discriminating against gays really a more important priority than wages and social services?

At any rate, this situation is light years ahead of China. They don't have any choice with their current government.

This still follows from your straw man that supposes that I mean that the US is a direct manipulator of the populace. But I didn't. In any case, see "fomenting an environment" comment above.

Nope.

Bummer.

Anyway.
Project Censored

Rule 1 of effective propaganda is telling the truth. At least most of the time. There is nothing that really beats that, when it comes to convincing people.

The German master of propoganda Goebbels would disagree with you. According to him the truth is the last thing that a proper propogandist needs:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

When the State controls the media, it only speaks what is convenient to itself which is not necessarily the truth. Propoganda is the ultimate enemy of democracy because it changes the will of the people to match that of its elites without regard for what is and isn't fact, which leads straight to my other favorite Goebbels quote:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Sound familiar -- almost like what got us into this mess that he want the propoganda for in the first place? Never forget why democracy failed in Germany and be wary of leaders that openly use propoganda to further "our" ends.

I read through that article and it just sounds like one pretentious blogger's disdain for Microsoft. Let's run through all the things that got this fast-tracked to Slashdot:

• Early mention of Steve Ballmer throwing a chair as a microcosm of Microsoft's supposed corporate culture
• Rampant grammer* and spelling errors overshadowed by a blind sense of faith in the Linux community. Example: "The Linux community will publish every vulnerability, regardless of it's criticality, but the chances that a hacker will even choose to expliot those vulnerabilities is very low, (unnecessary comma) since most of them are of low criticality and it would be stupid to do so, anyways." So people don't attack Linux because "it would be stupid to do so." Thank you.
• The actual "Executable Internet" isn't mentioned until the second-to-last paragraph: "The only reason a version of Windows that runs from the Internet would even exist would be because there is competition. Microsoft simply does not have enough fists to punch every opponent; resulting in a poorly designed operating platform and ignorant users who don't know the difference between WEP and WPA and those who are also accustomed to having Viagara advertisements greet them every time they boot their computers." Seems like this man is more upset that the hoi polloi use Linux than that Microsoft doesn't care about security.

This is pure Linux-user elitism, the sort of smug "Our Opponent Just Doesn't Get It; We Do; and We're Smarter Than You" attitude that loses political battles and makes the arguer only look like a pretentious fool in the eyes of the skeptic.

I dislike Microsoft as much as the next Slashdot user but this article is awful: it simply slams Microsoft as the Big Corporate Machine with quotes like "Microsoft does not publish all their security vulnerabilities because other executive stockholders, whom are also ignorant would become worried and eventually begin to question the platform's security." If I wanted to hear ramblings about the willfully ignorant I'd listen to a David Cross album.

Your rambling post seems to have very little point other than "lawsuits are bad". Using Stella Liebeck's "hot coffee" lawsuit as an example of that is only effective if you don't know or understand the underlying facts.

http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit. htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm

You are correct, however the reason this case went to court in the first place is because the injuries caused were NOT minor. One expects hot coffee to be hot, perhaps too hot to drink immediately, however you also have the expectation that it shouldn't severely injure you if spilled or consumed immediately. When coffee causes third degree burns, as in this case, that is a severe injury. It caused deep tissue damage to the woman's crotch area. That would indicate the product was dangerously hot. Incidentally the damage would have been the about the same regardless of location, sure the crotch is more sensitive nerve-wise but the skin there has the same burn tolerances as other uncalloused skin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but making coffee, tea or any hot beverage requires boiling water, i.e. 100C (212F), shouldn't common sense dictate that it isn't a good idea to splash that liquid on yourself before checking to see if it's ok?

One, coffee is not brewed with boiling water by most modern devices, older percolating devices used boiling water, it is in fact recommended by the Nation Coffee Association that coffe be brewed at a temperature no higher that 185F. Also, as was testified by burn specialists in this case, water at 190 degrees F (which was the temp McDonalds was serving at) causes third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds. In this case the temperature was so high that it would have caused immediate injury. The woman didn't splash it on herself to test the temperature, she spilled it. Now in this case the woman did a stupid thing by placing the cup between her legs. But what if it hadn't been the case? Let's alter the scenario slightly and say that a toddler in the seat next to her knocked the cup from the cup holder and into her lap. The temp was the same and she would have received the same injuries. The product was dangerously hot. There is a range in which coffee can be served hot but not be extremely likely to cause injury, McDonalds was knowingly operating above this range. (They had received over 700 complaints about the temp being too hot, they were aware they were 15 to 25 degrees above industry standard, and had not consulted an industry specialist to confirm the safety of this higher temperature.) Two links for you. A google search will find more information that corraborates these links as well.

"Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees."
quoted from here

The standard to which I was referred byt he sites that broke down this case was the internation coffee association website which states guidelines and best practices, although it is by no means an industry standard in the sense that many industries produce hard guidelines. While McDonalds was certainly within their rights to turn the temp up, most restaurants were below what McD's was serving at.

Here's a novel idea for you. Brew some coffee at 190 degrees, pour a cup and maintain the rest at 190. Now let the poured cup cool to 160 or 165, try it. You'll find that's a fine 'hot' temperature, not too cold as you claim. Now try to drink the other coffee at 190 degrees and notice how you burn the shit out of your mouth. And as to her "deep pockets" gold digging, the original suit asked only for $20,000 in medical expenses, which you also conveniently glossed over. It was only upon all denial by McDonalds for settlement that the amount was raised. The final settlement value, by the way, WAS released and was $480,000. There are well-established laws that punish companies for knowingly engaging in behavior or practices that are considered unsafe. Thus despite the fact that the woman played a role in her injury, McDonalds was considered partly at fault and found guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct".

Unlike your unsubstantiated rebuttal I have provided two links that support my facts. If you google for "mcdonalds + coffee + lawsuit" you will find many other sites that repeat these same facts, and if you look hard enough you'll probably find the court documents from which these sites got their information. It's completely tracable and you are dead wrong. A product intended for immediate human consumption should be able to be consumed by humans without causing third degree burns. I would say that a food or drink that causes immediate and severe injuries (requiring a skin graft is certainly severe!) is an unsafe product. How can you argue otherwise?

Ok, here's one from kindergarten: Actions speak louder than words.

Ok, I'm fairly certain that I can find a lot of evidence revealing how many leaders of academia actually feel about George W. Bush. And there's a lot of documentation on his actual actions regarding science and research in the nation.

Harvard's Howard Gardner calls Bush's science adviser a "prostitute." And we all remember the Scientists and Engineers for Change organization compromised of sixty Nobel scientists and Tech Leaders. I'll let you guess out their stance on bush. Don't forget their open letter to the American people stating, " President Bush and his administration are compromising our future."

Remember, he only said he supports it. Let's see some actual actions to follow that up.

And if you have time to read up on Bush's actions in the science community, take a look at the Politics and Science in the Bush Administration. I find it hilarious that anyone could expect me to swallow Bush's "scientific research and technology proposals" when his actions are no more proposals than death knells.

Indeed, it seems the hardest issue regarding science that Bush is struggling with is how to silence it.

Of course, the missle shield never worked anyway, for a simple reason, decoy missles.

The idea is that the missle defence 'kill vehicle' will launch after it has been confirmed a rogue nation has launched a missle against the US (or North America), and will hunt down and intercept it. The difficult is *not* actually hitting the target, which has been accomplished, but knowing which one the real target is.
Obviously, any nation sending nukes against the states would send decoy ones as well. As Theodore Postol (an expert on missle defence) recently said in a speech at McGill, not sending nukes would be like making a tank without armor, assuming the enemy doesn't have anti-tank weapons.

Even the most up to date missle defence technology really doesn't have a good way of differentiating nukes from fakes, if we don't know what the fake would look like in advance.
More info here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0902-03.ht m

Can you show me any short paragraphs or excerpts from your well documented evidence? Or will it be a link to a 5 page article full of vague accusations?

A few minutes with Google provides more than enough citations, even after excluding those from lefty publications:

CBS News says "Mr. Bush appreciates loyalty above all."

In Military Week, Lt. Col (ret) Karen Kwiatkowski lays it on the line: "George W. Bush and Dick Cheney habitually reward cowardice and incompetence. They continually place political loyalty above ethics and loyalty to country."

The British Guardian quotes Michael O'Hanlon saying "I certainly think Bush values loyalty above all else."

Time Magazine says "For a President known to prize loyalty above most else..."

The Washington Post says: "But on a matter of first-order significance to many conservatives, the president let personal loyalty override what had been a central tenet of his political strategy."

The St. Cloud Times says: "George W. Bush's particular brand of immoderation lies in the premium he places on trust and loyalty". It goes on to cite Alberto Gonzalez, Karen Hughes and Don Evans as examples. Of course we can add Harriet Meiers and Michael Brown to that list.

In a Newsday story, James Klurfield writes "What's going on here, folks, is that loyalty to the president is being rewarded above all other values, including competent performance."

The Council on Foreign Relations has an entire article called Loyalty as Foreign Policy

The New Republic says "...Moreover, both Johnson and Bush have been known to place a high premium on personal loyalty."

You can look at the whole of a Knight Ridder wire article entitled Bush's Loyalty Raises Doubts About His Political Judgment.

The British newspaper The Telegraph says "...Mr Tenet, who, like President Bush, prizes loyalty above most other virtues..."

I think I've made my point. You can find more for yourself with minimal effort if you care to.

Can you show me any short paragraphs or excerpts from your well documented evidence? Or will it be a link to a 5 page article full of vague accusations?

A few minutes with Google provides more than enough citations, even after excluding those from lefty publications:

CBS News says "Mr. Bush appreciates loyalty above all."

In Military Week, Lt. Col (ret) Karen Kwiatkowski lays it on the line: "George W. Bush and Dick Cheney habitually reward cowardice and incompetence. They continually place political loyalty above ethics and loyalty to country."

The British Guardian quotes Michael O'Hanlon saying "I certainly think Bush values loyalty above all else."

Time Magazine says "For a President known to prize loyalty above most else..."

The Washington Post says: "But on a matter of first-order significance to many conservatives, the president let personal loyalty override what had been a central tenet of his political strategy."

The St. Cloud Times says: "George W. Bush's particular brand of immoderation lies in the premium he places on trust and loyalty". It goes on to cite Alberto Gonzalez, Karen Hughes and Don Evans as examples. Of course we can add Harriet Meiers and Michael Brown to that list.

In a Newsday story, James Klurfield writes "What's going on here, folks, is that loyalty to the president is being rewarded above all other values, including competent performance."

The Council on Foreign Relations has an entire article called Loyalty as Foreign Policy

The New Republic says "...Moreover, both Johnson and Bush have been known to place a high premium on personal loyalty."

You can look at the whole of a Knight Ridder wire article entitled Bush's Loyalty Raises Doubts About His Political Judgment.

The British newspaper The Telegraph says "...Mr Tenet, who, like President Bush, prizes loyalty above most other virtues..."

I think I've made my point. You can find more for yourself with minimal effort if you care to.

Do vaccines really eliminate diseases?

According to the World Health Statistics Annual 1973-1976, Volume 2, there has been a steady decline in infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of vaccines administered. Researchers point out that infectious diseases disappeared as the result of sanitation, improved public water supplies, improved personal hygiene and better consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables. From 1850 to 1940, diseases had declined by 90% and were at an all time low when vaccines were first introduced. (Most vaccines were introduced in the 1950's). (emphasis added. source)

And yet the Republicans claim that it was to free people from documented genocide. Is it fair to not accept that as their belief on the matter?

These people were suspected terrorists and will be given a fair trial eventually (I admit that making them wait years for it is very wrong)

Why single out Israel? You seem to have a hate brewing for that country for some reason.

Yet republicans won the election with a majority.

Not just any company, a company run by a senator. "In 1996, Hagel became the first elected Republican Nebraska senator in 24 years when he did surprisingly well in an election where the votes were verified by the company he served as chairman and maintained a financial investment. In both the 1996 and 2002 elections, Hagel's ES&S counted an estimated 80% of his winning votes." This from an interesting article at http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm

Nay, I believe they are covering up a rigged election.... and presumably their complicity in it. I thought it was pretty damned convenient that Bush started winning at the last minute after the whole rest of the country had pretty much voted, and just by coincidence the state tipping the balance to give Bush the election was using-- wait for it-- Diebold Election Machines.

And let's not forget that infamous quote from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc., who swore that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.h tm)

And just for the record-- you might wanna think about the election bru-ha-ha that happened in 2000 in California... a state conveniently governed by Bush's brother... coincidence??? Yeah, sure. Oh, and the margins were extremely slim there too.

So where's the evidence? Where's the smoking gun? Why aren't people crying out and taking to the streets? Well, it turns out THEY ARE! A quick google search for for "US Election Fraud" comes back with 17.9 Million entries. Another search for "us stole election 2004" turns up 9.2 Million entries. Yet another for "bush election fraud" turns up 11.9 Million entries. Admittedly these results are unscientific, and there is perhaps some overlap in the numbers, but every search with combinations of words like "Bush", "Stole", "Election", "US", and "2004" or "2000", and various permutations of these terms, comes up with literally millions and millions of results-- meaning a significant percentage of people in the US (and of course around the world) believe the US Elections were not fair and accurate. A similar check for with Clinton comes back with only a comparative handful of results. And very few people seem concerned with Nixon, Carter, or Reagan's election results-- only around a million or so have anything to say on that subject. And just for illustration purposes and to give us some counterpoint results, a google search for the word "vagina" turns up about 23 Million entries, so while it is clear that people are obviously more interested in vaginas than Bush, still they are ruminating about the liklihood of a fraudulant US election at least half as often. I'd say these are some startling results!

So, while this is definitely a somewhat tongue-in-cheek commentary about the subject of Diebold and election fraud, not to mention a clever way to work in the word "vagina" multiple times during my post... the subject of hijacking the US election is a very serious one and people need to demand that their elected officials do what's right (as if that ever happens) and get down to the truth of the elections. People are worried what the revelation of such a high, treasonous crime would do to the national outlook, economy, and to the rest of the world. However, I say that NOT looking into it, NOT telling the public the TRUTH, and NOT hanging everyone involved by the balls until blue would be an even GREATER INJUSTICE foisted upon the American people!

Yes its bad if the election's been compromised. Its worse if people know and nothing happens.

Here are a lot of links to get you on your way... there are a lot of people concerned about Diebold, the elections, and whether or not George W Bush is the rightful president-- and they are concerned about it not ONCE, but TWICE!!!

The Wikipedia Entry on the STOLEN US Election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_co ntroversies_and_irregularities

A goog search on the subject: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=2004+election +voting+machine&btnG=Google+Search

Some selected sites (I have no affiliation):

Hearings on Ohio Voting P